Never Mind The Hurt, Maimed, Or Dead MenThe New York Timespraises the Obama administration for coming up with an advocate for female domestic violence victims, the White House adviser on violence against women:

A national survey of domestic violence shelters released in May showed a significant increase in the number of women seeking assistance since last fall, a rise largely attributable to the stresses of the economic crisis and rising unemployment. States need to set up more emergency shelters and find more transitional housing for people fleeing violent situations. And they must do more to help these victims rebuild their lives.

Did they also show an increase in the number of men seeking assistance? Probably not, and not because men aren't domestic violence victims, too. Men are embarrassed to admit to being victims of domestic violence, and try to laugh it off. Sometimes all the way to the grave or at least serious injury. And domestic violence shelters and programs are often women-only. An excerpt from a piece on Lew Rockwell by Wendy McElroy:

Indeed, women's shelters often deny entry to male children over 12 years old. (The legality of doing so at tax-funded shelters is dubious, to say the least.)

Why should even male teenagers be excluded? In a protest letter to the Transition House Board, the feminist organization About Women explained that the shelter must be a space where "women could feel safe from male intrusion and could openly unburden themselves of the experiences of male violence they had undergone without fear of censure, criticism or inhibition by male presence."

One interpretation of the foregoing statement makes sense. Some female domestic violence victims have been so brutalized by the men in their lives that a mere male presence may well terrify them. For that category of domestic violence victim, a women-only shelter may be the most compassionate and effective option.

...In short, women-only feminists argue that women are battered not merely by an individual male abuser but by the entire male gender and, so, they must be protected from both.

This is similar to claiming that a white person who has been beaten by a black needs to be in a black-free environment because they have been battered not merely by a specific black person but by an entire race.

To carry the analogy one step farther, it is similar to demanding that blacks should not be employed or allowed on the premises of a whites-only shelter...even if those premises are tax-funded and, so, prohibited from discrimination.

The ideological argument for women-only shelters - as opposed to the practical argument that, sometimes, such shelters just make sense - is class guilt. The guilty class is "male." Class guilt does not allow an individual male to demonstrate his innocence because, simply by being a member of a class, he is guilty by definition.

The concept of class guilt never ceases to anger me. As a victim of domestic violence, I know the fist that legally blinded my right eye was wielded by a specific man, not by a class. And I refuse to dilute his responsibility by extending it to men who've done me no harm.

It angers me as well because I'm the sort of domestic violence victim who needed exposure to non-abusive men, not isolation from all male presence, in order to heal. I needed to realize that decent caring men still existed and that I could interact with them in a positive way. In other words, a specific man was my problem; men as a whole were part of the solution.

It's especially important for domestic abuse victims, male and female, to have access to groups where other domestic abuse victims talk about their experience, according to my friend Sergeant Heather (of the LAPD). She's found that the most effective way to get victims to stop denying what's happening to them and get out is to get them to listen to other victims tell their stories. Telling victims to leave tends to just make them defensive.

Comments

> Telling victims to leave
> tends to just make
> them defensive.

Point taken... And I'm glad no friend has ever had to come to me for thoughts about this, because the response would be clumsy.

Because for people who aren't inclined to violent psychodrama, asking "Why don't you just move away?" is a perfectly sensible response. Folks who would get 'defensive' in such a circumstance are demonstrating even more ego distortion... This makes it tough to sympathize.

Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com]
at July 8, 2009 3:48 AM

"Indeed, women's shelters often deny entry to male children over 12 years old. (The legality of doing so at tax-funded shelters is dubious, to say the least.)
Why should even male teenagers be excluded?"

Duh. Because they are undergoing puberty, and it is male sexuality, not male presence, really at issue. Despite this bit of dissembling claptrap:

"women could feel safe from male intrusion and could openly unburden themselves of the experiences of male violence they had undergone without fear of censure, criticism or inhibition by male presence."

Male presense is okay, apparently, if their hormone count is still lacking in testosterone.

Kicking out a 13 year old boy and his mother who otherwise qualify for help pretty much tells me all I need to know about the "shelter".

Spartee
at July 8, 2009 6:24 AM

"The concept of class guilt never ceases to anger me."

Pat Santy (Dr. Sanity) has written a lot about this; it's what she calls a shame culture. She draws a distinction between guilt cultures and shame cultures, which she defines as: A guilt culture assigns blame for misdeeds to individuals. A shame culture assigns blame for misdeeds to classes. Islam, to name a prominent one, is very much a shame culture.

It should be clear that you can't have anything like a modern Western concept of lawful justice in a shame culture, because such a culture guarantees unequal representation under the law. I think this is the real key as to why Western leftists have such an attraction to radical Islam -- they and the Islamists would both like to establish shame cultures, with themselves as the blameless class.

Cousin Dave
at July 8, 2009 7:03 AM

Kinda off-topic, but not really... the advert to the right of this column has a HUGE picture of a muslim girl (muslima.com). Her face is twice as big as Amy's and threw me for a loop.

Not to be snarky, but I'm sure that girl would need a female-only and muslim-only shelter, too.

Lauren
at July 8, 2009 7:48 AM

I think the shame here is that we get caught up in a gender issue rather than find a solution. I can understand why some shelters would have a female/only policy. Some victims are too terrified of a male presence and need time to recuperate from not just physcial but emotional wounds. The problem with men as victims is that we do live in a society that holds on to ideas about gender and expects men to always be strong. It makes it difficult for a man to admit to being a victim of domestic violence. I sympathize a great deal with those men because I know it happens, but I think that fighting "feminist" ideals is not the answer. There are options for men just as there are for women. While there should be support groups for both and groups where both genders interract, housing is a different story and should remain separate for the comfort of all parties. The only agency I know of where I am from allows boys over 12 so I am not aware of any practice excluding them. I am curious though if these shelters are turning these people away or if they are finding alternate housing for them. Domestic violence affects men, women, boys and girls. We cannot treat and help just women and expect it to go away because it does not. But when the fight turns to "feminist" groups and issues, it detracts from the real issue itself which is about control and violence. No man, woman or child should ever have to be subject to that.

Kristen
at July 8, 2009 8:19 AM

Totally irrelevant, but I always find it funny when you mention your friend, "Sergeant Heather". Such an incongrous pairing....like "General Ashley" or "Lieutenant Brittany." I get this Valley Girl image.

Anyway, denying a 13 yr old boy access to a shelter is just ridiculous. I can see having different areas, especially for women who may feel really brutalized and frightened, but where's that mom supposed to go if she has her son with her?

lovelysoul
at July 8, 2009 8:40 AM

...a rise largely attributable to the stresses of the economic crisis and rising unemployment.

'cause everyone knows when a man loses his job or feels any stress, his first instinct is to go home and beat his wife.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/08/nevermind_the_m.html#comment-1657561">comment from lovelysoul

Totally irrelevant, but I always find it funny when you mention your friend, "Sergeant Heather". Such an incongrous pairing....like "General Ashley" or "Lieutenant Brittany."

I do that on purpose -- LOVE the incongruity, and her name does happen to be Heather. She is a highly tactical, tough-as-nails LAPD cop, but also blonde, beautiful, and very glamorous, but dresses like I do -- for a song, out of designer resale, Goodwill, etc. I met her at my designer resale store. She was talking about identity theft and I was eavesdropping and told her so and invited her out for a drink with Jill Stewart and me, and we've been friends ever since. She's a great mom and a great person, and not just very smart but smart about life in a way few people are. Also, she's one of those people you can take absolutely anywhere. I went to a night sponsored by the Hungarian ambassador to the Western USA, Hungarian cultural night, which was basically people playing the music of Hungarian goatherds and she went and had a great time.

"Sometimes all the way to the grave": See Steve McNair, 13 year NFL Quarterback.

Robin
at July 8, 2009 9:30 AM

"There are options for men just as there are for women. "

Really, Kristen? What would those be - just leaving? Just leaving and abandoning your kids to an abuser with no chance of ever getting custody because you're just a male?

Can you point me in the direction of any male-only DV shelters?

Can yu name one state where all a man has to do is tell the police that he "is frightened" of his wife to have her removed form the home?

Because that those would be something like "options". At least equal options.

"The only agency I know of where I am from allows boys over 12 so I am not aware of any practice excluding them."

You admit in that comment that that is a vanishingly small sample, a sample of one item, so what is your point with that?

"I am curious though if these shelters are turning these people away or if they are finding alternate housing for them."

The problem with alternative housing is that it is unequal. Alternative housing usually amounts to a voucher for a hotel room - no security to prevent the abusive spouse from harrassing the abused spouse, and none of the other services a shelter provides. Hardly good enough, at least if it's a woman receiving the "alternative housing".

The issue is equality.

"But when the fight turns to "feminist" groups and issues, it detracts from the real issue itself which is about control and violence. "

This assumes that "feminist groups" are all uniformly against control and violence against men. That conflicts with the published statements of many feminists and feminist groups, which is full of hate speech against men and male sexuality.

"Anyway, denying a 13 yr old boy access to a shelter is just ridiculous. I can see having different areas, especially for women who may feel really brutalized and frightened, but where's that mom supposed to go if she has her son with her?"

That's the crux of the problem, LS. I guess she is just supposed to get rid of him and go into the shelter. He's really just a latent rapist, after all.

I can see how a really traumatized woman might need a male-free environment, as a form of treatment. I cannot see how her condition or need for a male-free environment can be characterized as anything other than pathological. Does anyone here know of shelters which reject 12 y/o and above males that do in fact characterize this as pathological?

Jim
at July 8, 2009 9:56 AM

Amy,
How do you think the DV establishment gets those millions of dollars every year? Californias Supreme Court made that State throw out its entire DV shelter funding program because it was unconstitutional. Do you think that other states are the same?

Men have become 6th class citizens in US and as long as we just "pay the bills and shutup" all is fine. As it goes now this is the pecking order:

We spend billions of dollars every year on female health issues but a mere fraction of that number on men. We pass laws like VAWA and the Bradley Amendment to fix the "now" issues with no thought to the future. We have colleges which have become nothing but feminist indoctrination camps. On top of this we have hotels and businesses trying to become women only but women scream when theres an all male club about thier "exclusion". Its ok for them to have a gym or even a hotel thats restricted from men but not the other way around.

They want equality without compromise.Kind of a smorgasboard they can pick and choose from. I dont pander to women any longer (except my wife :D )I refuse to open doors for them,I refuse to get out of the way and let them go in first, I refuse to give up my seat, or do any of the things I used to do to be a gentleman. Why should I? What good has it accomplished. All the centuries of men being chivilrous has brought us to this.

I dont advocate violence against anyone but I will not be cowed. If a women stands up to a man and hits that man with anything she has given up her rights to protection. How many times have we seen a man,even in obvious self defense,hauled off to jail because she hit him,he defended and shes the one who called the cops and with her sob story had him removed from the house he pays for because of VAWA and other programs requiring Law enforcement almost by default to remove the man.

Until we start using some real common sense (not likely with the current administration and congress) and forcing women to be subject to equal punishments that they demand of men things will not change.

Does this mean that uber-feminists really believe that a woman in danger should just leave behind her male children? Doesn't that thinking seem like...misandry?

Honestly, I freak out when people call me a feminist; it has become such a bad word in my mind. Yes, I don't want to have children. Yes, I've traveled to other countries for humanitarian causes and work with human rights organizations. No, I don't think that treating men like dirt somehow creates any sort of equal footing. I try to always categorize my activities as "woman's rights in 3rd world countries", hopefully coming across more as wishing to stop genital mutilations and honor killings then to make sure that a woman has rights above and beyond that of any male.

Point of interest: my spell check does not recognize the word “misandry”. I call injustice! Let us sue Microsoft for not being male-sensitive!

Stacy
at July 8, 2009 11:15 AM

Would it not be better to have exclusionary environments in a slightly more controlled fashion? Like a "no X beyond this point" set up?
I can't say it's bad or evil to let a woman or man, child or adult, have some space from triggers if they have been severely traumatized. PTSD isn't all fun and tralala. If Dave was beaten with a marble chessboard, there's a good chance he may have an aversion to anything related to chess. If Susan was listening to Journey when a semi hydroplaned and slammed into her, she may never want to listen to them again.
I'm not saying that they should be allowed to force others to give up their game-board or musical interests. I'm just saying that perhaps a brief time away from something related isn't unwise.

Steph
at July 8, 2009 11:56 AM

Sergeant Heather sounds really cool, Amy.

You know, it always strikes me when we discuss this that the guys bitch about the unfairness but don't take any accountability for changing the situation.

Women's shelters were set up by women. They saw a need to help other women, who are still, any way you cut it, the primary targets and victims of DV, and they did something about it. Men didn't do it for them. So, why must women build male only shelters? If you see something that is unjust and needs to be addressed, then work towards changing it.

I mean, I don't think it's some conspiracy to deny male DV victims help. I honestly believe most people just haven't considered the imbalance. Like no one really considered the terrible predicament female victims were in before feminists brought it to the forefront. But, rather than villanize them for helping their own, why not take a cue from that?

Men should take the lead here and help other men - this would also destigmatize DV for male victims. Why would a male victim want to run to a shelter staffed by all women any more than a woman would want to take cover in one staffed by all men?

There are some experiences that are not gender-neutral, and the reason things have evolved the way they have in female shelters is because an environment is needed which offers support from a uniquely female perspective. I would guess the same is true for men.

If I was a guy and was going to admit being abused by a woman, I don't think I'd really want to talk about it in front of a bunch of women. Wouldn't you want another man to tell you it was ok and that you're not alone among men?

lovelysoul
at July 8, 2009 12:41 PM

"You know, it always strikes me when we discuss this that the guys bitch about the unfairness but don't take any accountability for changing the situation. "

You have hit the nail on the head, there.

" Men didn't do it for them."

Wrong there; men paid for these shelters, if they receive any public funding of any sort.

"So, why must women build male only shelters?"

They shouldn't. They should just stay out of the way when men try to build men's or male-only shelters; i.e, not try to block funding for them, not argue against them and calim that men don't ned shelters because the majority of violence is aimed at women or some such specious nonsense, not try to sahme men out of getting unequal DV laws repealed.

"Men should take the lead here and help other men - this would also destigmatize DV for male victims."

Bingo. Men are too caught up in helping women; we are progtrammed to think that makes us real men. This has to stop. Women can either look out for themselves are die by the side of the road.

"If I was a guy and was going to admit being abused by a woman, I don't think I'd really want to talk about it in front of a bunch of women. Wouldn't you want another man to tell you it was ok and that you're not alone among men?"

This is sound common sense, but unfortunately the world, at least in this country, doesn't work that way. Men often find a lot more sympathy from women than from other men; that's just the way it is. Sympathy, but not understanding - after all. This is slowly, slowly starting to change, and one example of it is the way that the Army, at long, long last, is starting to address the issue of suicide. Maybe it will spread to civilian men eventually.

"There are some experiences that are not gender-neutral, and the reason things have evolved the way they have in female shelters is because an environment is needed which offers support from a uniquely female perspective. I would guess the same is true for men. "

Totally agree with this. One example of a difference is that it is unlikely to find a woman who has ever been mocked, or expects to be mocked, by other women as a weakling for being battered. A man can expect that treatment form both men and women.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/08/nevermind_the_m.html#comment-1657588">comment from lovelysoul

Sergeant Heather sounds really cool, Amy.

She is. Just a great person. Like a number of my friends -- Nancy Rommelmann, Emmanuelle Richard, and my late friend Cathy Seipp -- I often find myself in awe of her for something or other. She has an autistic child and he is just a happy little ray of sunshine, and I can see it's thanks to the mother she is and the wise person she is. I am not known as a kid person, but I find him pretty inspiring, and write him letters from the elephants (he has a thing for elephants), and he's only four but can read at about an eighth grade level.

Jim, this is one area where the inherent differnces between men and women really show. When I think of our DV shelter, I think of the many female volunteers I know who help run it. Men don't volunteer to help women DV victims like that. Paying taxes isn't the same thing, since it isn't voluntary.

Even if men had shelters, would it really be possible to find enough men to give up their time to help keep it going? Women, by nature, tend to be the nurturing, "do-gooder" types that are necessary for these sorts of things.

I'm not aware of any attempt by men to build a male-only shelter, at least anywhere near my community. A persuasive case for one would need to be made, but that is true for any movement. If people care enough, they invest in the PSAs and literature to bring awareness to the issue. I haven't seen that happening. Why not? Is it shame, apathy, or pure social conditioning?

C'mon, you guys can organize sports leagues, rotary clubs, and everything else. How could it be so hard to build some shelters or safe houses?

It just seems to me that men can't simply blame feminists for not doing this for you or making the process easy. You are right, no doubt...in the name of consistency, feminists should facilitate it...and Palestinians should care about Jews too...but it ain't gonna happen. Get over that pipe dream and take action yourselves.

lovelysoul
at July 8, 2009 2:17 PM

"C'mon, you guys can organize sports leagues, rotary clubs, and everything else. How could it be so hard to build some shelters or safe houses?"

I suppose someone could note that our whole nation is a safe house, thanks to guys who get their bodies ripped in half by roadside bombs, protecting everyone in America (including the women in safe houses) in the process.

But we all understand that, in the end, it is the largely male cops, soldiers, etc. who protect society by sacrificing their safety-- rather a few hours a week--and your comment was not meant to suggest men are not carrying their weight in this regard.

Spartee
at July 8, 2009 2:44 PM

Lovelysoul -

I believe that men, in response to the organized urging of feminist types, built and payed for the women's shelters,passed the laws (VAWA)that outrageously discriminate against men, and also thelegislation that continues to provide big bucks so that feminist groups can continue their society wrecking work at the tax payer expense. Men did this becuase, as a group, we want to protect and help women (we are chivalrous, as our mothers taught us). In our culture, no one, man or woman, has much respect or patience with men who are victims of DV (this is because we are macho, as our mother's taught us).

It's nice to say that men should do what women did and build their own male only DV shelters. I think we would if we had the luxury of just complaining and demanding it until some other group funds the effort and makes it happen. Men don't have a "go to" group that they can complain to and demand that they solve our problems.

The facts are that DV is an industry which many people (ecspecially feminists) count on for their livelihood. Their livelihood depends on keeping the scam going which means focusing on women only and keeping false DV statistics on the front page. This is why they resist every effort to have the true nature of DV come to light. After all, women's studies teach that only women are victims of DV - these highly trained feminst DV professionals have no credentials or training for dealing with male DV victims (and it might affect their funding). Therefore there are no male DV victims.

In a nod to equality, would you likewise admit all of women's problems are their own damn fault? Or that women would never have accomplished shit with the "women's movement" without men's active approval and, more importantly, funding? I doubt it.

It is not so much your inability to discern your own privilege which is off-putting, but your smugness.

Jay R
at July 8, 2009 3:29 PM

That's a nice story, Oldfellow, but you're completely dismissing that men alone do not make up the legislature. Men alone do not fund and build shelters. They certainly do not staff and volunteer in them. Women are heavily involved, both in selling the idea and activating it.

As someone who has lost a female friend to a homicide committed by her boyfriend, who shot her point blank in the head, I understand that women are far more likely to die in a DV incident than males. The statistics do not even come close. For every rare McNair or Winkler case out there, many more nameless, faceless women are beaten, shot, or stabbed to death.

This is not to say that violence against men shouldn't be addressed. It is awful when it happens, but the reality is that DV against men usually takes place in the heat of the moment or completely unexpected (like McNair and Winkler). It is not as common that men are truly afraid to leave or need a place of refuge.

I always have to mention that I've run a trailer park for 20 years, and I know that does not uniquely qualify me, but trailer parks are kind of ground zero for domestic violence. I've have drunks and addicts of all kinds here, male and female. And it is rare that the man is the one so dominated and controlled that he lives in perpetual fear every day.

I have a young female tenant right now who is not "allowed" out of her home if her boyfriend isn't there, not "allowed" to go to the store alone or to the doctor, even though she needs to see one, not "allowed" to talk to other men unless her boyfriend is present. He calls her names, like "whore" and "stupid c--t" daily and openly. She takes it, but we are all beginning to intervene. Trying to persuade her that she deserves better.

That is abuse. And, in my many years of being a landlord, I just haven't seen a man in that specific predicament where his every movement had to be justified and/or granted "permission".

I'm not talking about petty jealousy. I know women get angry over things like that - and they hit and scream - but I haven't witnessed a man who was so FRIGHTENED of a woman that he couldn't get in his truck and drive off...and keep going.

And, even if there are some of those men out there, I think the truth is that most of them would not run to a shelter. They would run to a buddy, their parents, another woman, or a bar before they'd run to a shelter. For one thing, booze or drugs are not allowed in shelters, so even many women who need to go to one (such as my dead friend) won't because they're addicts.

Let's be honest enough to admit that this is why male shelters are not being built because they would be virtually empty.

lovelysoul
at July 8, 2009 3:48 PM

Nice to hear from you again, Jay R. I've missed you. :)

lovelysoul
at July 8, 2009 3:51 PM

Guys - I've said it before and I'll say it again. You can whine all you want about how evil feminists are keeping you down -- or you can take matters into your own hands and actively fight for men's shelters. Maybe you can start where women did: by turning their own homes into safe houses, sort of like the underground railroad. I'm pretty sure no government funding of any sort was involved in those.

Seems to me if someone's going to change a man's attitude it's likely to be another man. Of course it's easier to blame women for your problems than it is to take actual action on your own behalf.

Also I'm glad to hear from so many guys that men are naturally chivalrous. Who exactly then was beating the women in the first place to create the need for shelters?

And I'm with lovelysoul. Men do get battered and deserve a place to feel safe. But I don't know a single one who ever plotted his escape, all the time in sheer terror, after beatings that broke bones, caused concussions, left handprints on his neck. I don't know a single one who was not allowed to work or talk to friends or maintain contact with his family. Maybe by honestly admitting the difference in degrees you'd gain some respect for your movement.

JulieA
at July 8, 2009 6:20 PM

Amy, your friend Sgt. Heather sounds like a wise cop/mom/person. (Plus, yes, the title/name combo can't be beat, no pun intended.) Has she told you what percentages of DV cases she handles are men vs. women, and what the typical degree of damage is for each group?

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/08/nevermind_the_m.html#comment-1657610">comment from JulieA

Haven't asked her, but I actually wouldn't go by reported cases because I know many, many men don't report their abuse and don't even know they're victims of domestic abuse or admit it if they do know.

In general, I have a problem with statistics on how frequently things occur as any accurate measure. As an epidemiologist taught me, all studies are flawed, and the question is simply how flawed? I frequently find errors in basic logic in studies touted by many, like the Hatfield study on a college campus where attractive strangers asked people to come home with them and have sex. Mentioned this the other day - read about it again in an otherwise good book that drew the same conclusions Hatfield did, that it said something about men's versus women's willingness to have sex. To me, the problem is that women tend to be weaker than most men and there's a danger element for them, so a woman who met a man at a party, where there's context, or at a bar, where she talked to him for an hour, might go home with him where she wouldn't in a momentary meeting walking across the diag.

I've always thought the same thing about that sex study -- except for the part where even married men or men in relationships said yes, if I'm recalling it correctly. I'm betting that far fewer women would risk their personal lives for a roll with a stranger, no matter how attractive.

And I have to say that a man who doesn't even know he's a victim of domestic abuse clearly isn't being beaten to a pulp or living in such terror that he ceases all contact with friends and family. The night one of my friends finally fled, she had 34 bones broken, most of them in her face. It goes to degrees, again.

JulieA
at July 8, 2009 6:51 PM

You seem a little angry at my comment, Jim, and I'm not sure why. When I said that where I live, I only meant it as my experience which would be where I live. And I asked what the alternative would be not because I want a man in an abusive situation to be sent to a motel with no security but because I'm really asking what is done in that situation. I can't imagine a man being turned away just as I cannot imagine a woman being turned away because she has a 13 year old son. I could be wrong, but I think that most of these agencies do help people and want to help people. It certainly doesn't mean that the system is perfect, but that is why I asked the questions I asked. My ex-husband was a cop and he was very abusive to not only me, but to our kids. You don't have to tell me what its like trying to get a police report let alone a restraining order. Both of my sons were older. While I did not go to a shelter, the local DV agency did offer it as an option to me and my children and they knew the ages of my sons. That is why I asked the question. Does anyone here that is complaining know what the agency will do for a man or for a woman with a son deemed too old? Does anyone have any suggestions or ideas, or are you just complaining about the unfairness of it all. Life isn't fair and not just for men. Its the kids that I feel for. They didn't ask to be born and they certainly did not ask to be born into a situation that is violent. It would be great if people realized that Domestic Violence is a cycle and that the children involved are at riskk to repeat that cycle unless there is intervention. Intervention isn't just for women, but for men too. So before you get all upset about my comment, understand that I'm not looking to argue with you. I would never want a man to be a victim or to feel he had nowhere to turn just as I wouldn't want that for a woman.

Kristen
at July 8, 2009 6:52 PM

I think of the many female volunteers I know who help run it. Men don't volunteer to help women DV victims like that. -ls

That because men arent allowed to vollenteer at a womens only shelter.

Kinda a catch 22 right?

By the way LS what kind of hypocrite condems men for not vollenteering their time at a place where they are forbiden by local law from even being?

lujlp
at July 8, 2009 8:21 PM

Seems to me if someone's going to change a man's attitude it's likely to be another man. Of course it's easier to blame women for your problems than it is to take actual action on your own behalf. - JulieA

Julie, pertend to be a man, reverse the genders of that statment and post it on a femminist blog about DV and watch what happens

lujlp
at July 8, 2009 8:41 PM

There was an interesting article in the local paper maybe a year ago or so. The local men's shelter (DV or just homeless) is full every night with many turned away so there clearly is a need.

I imagine there is a lot less need for the men for DV, many just get surprized and are dead like my brother's friend. Or they fight back and then in the eye's of the law are guilty of DV and in jail.

Men cannot volunteer at any of the women's shelters because they are men-free zone because of the emotional stress of the women.

One quote from an interview with a volunteer sticks with me (not exact but the jist is correct. "I feel like I am making a difference and we can easily live on my husband's salary." I do not know how representative she is. It does seem like in general the women who volunteer a lot have a husband bring in the bucks.

The Former Banker
at July 8, 2009 8:53 PM

Lujlp - Again, why does men's action depend on women's reactions? If you want shelters for men, start working to get them opened. Otherwise it's just whining victimhood.

JulieA
at July 8, 2009 9:47 PM

BY that logic JulieA women where whiney victims for lobbying the men in government for money to build womens shelters.

Obviously they should have put up their own money and not gone whining for a hand out.

Tell me, as womens groups continue to seek government funds, and acctually lobby against the few "whiney" men trying to get their own funding, do you consider them to whiners as well?

lujlp
at July 9, 2009 2:40 AM

Men can't volunteer at shelters, it's true. But I was answering someone else who was maintaining how "hard" men work helping women DV victims. That doesn't appear to be any more true than men are working hard to help male DV victims. I don't see the average man doing anything on this issue at all, except whining.

What you're doing is extracting from some stats about how women strike back in DV incidents. This is true. I've had terribly co-dependent dysfunctional couples here who fight like cats and dogs.

Yet, you are surmising from this stat that there are tons of men out there quaking in their boots, afraid to leave their women because they have nowhere to go.

I believe that assumption is false. I may be right or wrong, but it's important to know the answer before investing taxpayer money and resources to build shelters that may well sit empty.

You should not be angry at women for not pushing for something no one even knows will work! Society does not need to take ineffective and illogical action just for gender balance. As we've seen from affirmative action programs, that mindset often leads to very poor policy.

What we need to do is assess the true need. We cannot have men at female-only shelters. Those are usually at secret locations, and it would be too easy for a male to pretend he needed to go just to find out where it is. That's too dangerous for the women seeking refuge there.

My suggestion would be police stations and/or firehouses. They are located strategically in all major cities. Have them set aside some safe rooms just for male DV victims.

We can then see how often they are used. From this, we can determine if male-only shelters are needed.

lovelysoul
at July 9, 2009 6:34 AM

Society does not need to take ineffective and illogical action just for gender balance - ls

Nor do we need to take ineffective and illogiacl action just for gender BIAS

You know why rates for DV havent drpped to non existant levels all ready? Becuae they are treating the symptoms and not the cause.

Imagine a guy going to the doctor once a week for stiches, and every week they dotor sews him up, now imagine that instead of just sewing him up the dotor also takes away the knife his paitent keeps stabbing hiomself with

Nearly 40 yrs of reacting to DV in the same manner and nothing has changed, should that tell you something?

You wonder if men need shelters? Really? You wonder at the lack of reports? If a woman can have a man arrested for "frightening" her, what change has a guy got?

My suggestion would be police stations and/or firehouses. They are located strategically in all major cities. Have them set aside some safe rooms just for male DV victims.

We can then see how often they are used. From this, we can determine if male-only shelters are needed.
-ls

Now if we could just solve the problem of womens lobbyist who claim that funding for mens only shelters is unneccesary as womens shelters provide services to men

lujlp
at July 9, 2009 7:04 AM

"...let's just say I had an adrenaline moment, I hit her in the mouth."

So, this guy is in his wife's face, screaming at her for being so stupid, etc, and she impulsively threatens him with the knife in her hand, so he punches her in the face. No doubt this is a sick, toxic relationship. They both get some sort of emotional payoff here - fighting, making up, fighting again. At that point they've already been fighting for hours...with their kids in the house listening to it.

But that doesn't mean he's really terrified of her, day to day. That doesn't mean he'd go to a shelter for safety. He's the one bold enough to be yelling that she's fucking stupid for walking around with the kids in the cold (which does sound like she needs mental health counseling, not jail time).

That doesn't demonstrate a vast need for male-only shelters. You first have to know if men will really GO to shelters. Some will, yes. How many?

I'm just saying it's rare that men truly feel that desperate and afraid of a woman that they would go to a shelter. Most of these type incidents happen in the heat of the moment, and the man is still bigger and able to defend himself, as he did, though punching her in the mouth was not the right thing to do.

I agree that that there needs to be some safe haven for men. But it cannot be the woman's shelter for the reasons I mentioned. I think my suggestion is a good one. It would require very little funding because fire/police stations are already built.

But you'll need to lobby for it. You'll need to ask for funding from all sorts of places - the Rotary, the Masons, the American Legion...I don't know. Show them photos of men with their faces beaten in, tug at their heart strings. Keep going until somebody says, "Yes". That's how anybody who organizes anything gets it done.

You can't just throw up your hands and say things are impossible to change. It takes grassroots organization, but if you care enough about an issue and can demonstrate a need, you can make a difference.

lovelysoul
at July 9, 2009 7:44 AM

In what universe is attempting to stab a guy multipule times with a knive "threatening"

As I recall that qualifys as assult witrh a deadly weapon - And what would you have him do ls? stand there and get stabbed? I wouldnt have punched her, I would have kicked her in the knee.

And what kinda moron take a kid outside in freezing weather for more than 5hrs?

She tied to slit his throat and it was a threat, he hit her in self defense.

Tell me if a woman was smacked around be her husband after hearing her yell at him for hours at a time would you say she has no needd for a shelter as she obviously get something out of the relationship?

Tell you what go say the same thing you said here on a feminist site after you change the gendrers and see if your fellow feminists agree

lujlp
at July 9, 2009 9:09 AM

JKristen,

Sorry at my tone - I was angry at your comment because it was so ignorant, but that really is no crime. We can't all know everything. But then again, we should acknowledge the limits of our knowledge and refrain from making definitive statemenrts without basis.

But then there is willful ignorance:

"My suggestion would be police stations and/or firehouses. They are located strategically in all major cities. Have them set aside some safe rooms just for male DV victims."

Sattes have laws that explicitly dney that men can be DV victims, and men routinely get arrested when they call police for help, and you are suggesting that we go to the POLICE? How clueless do you have to be, how blinded by female privelge to you have to be, to suggest this?

"Show them photos of men with their faces beaten in, tug at their heart strings."

Well if a jury acquits a Mary Winkler, who shot her sleeping husband in the back, and then claimed he abused her by making her wear high heels as some kind of adefense for murder, and she still gets off, what chance is there that soem picutres of battered men's faces will do the trick? This is a society where people pay mnoney to see men's faces get basked in. Clue up. Tug at their heartstrings my ass. You see how much their heartstrings are tugged by all the body bags coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"And, in my many years of being a landlord, I just haven't seen a man in that specific predicament where his every movement had to be justified and/or granted "permission"."

Homney, you can't see what you're looking away from. That kind of shit happens to men all the time. There's never time for them to spend with his family, and he's a "momma's boy" for even asking. (And that is far worse than calling someone a "cunt" FYI. And FYI, that's where these commnets about "whining" fit too. I know woman tend not to be ashamed of being seen as weak or whiny - well, not seeing that men do is just more willful ignorance.)

"Yet, you are surmising from this stat that there are tons of men out there quaking in their boots, afraid to leave their women because they have nowhere to go.
I believe that assumption is false."

Belive what you like - your belief makes no difference one way or the other. But tell us, where in this country will a woman immediateley and routinely lose her children for leaving her husband?

How much would that frighten a woman? Do you think it might be used to put the feat into a man?

Sound of crickets chirping......

Jim
at July 9, 2009 9:38 AM

Sorry, Jim, but after reading your rambling hostile comment, I just cannot make sense of it or see where any of your thoughts are based on anything other than generalizations. Obviously you're not interested in a respectful discussion with opposing view points. I see you putting down other view points, but other than whining, I don't see you coming up with any solutions. BTW, did you renew your membership in the "he-man woman haters club" recently?

Kristen
at July 9, 2009 12:06 PM

That's it, Kristen. Some of these guys are just not solution-oriented. They'd rather wallow in their self-pity and anger at women. To do something about it would confront their belief that the world is entirely against them and nothing they do can change it, so they might as well sit on their lazy asses and complain.

Men won't go to shelters, not in large numbers. They know this. Male-only shelters would likely be taken over by homeless men not DV victims. Nobody WANTS to go to a shelter. Most women don't either. It is a refuge of last resort. You go there when you know he'll be looking for you everywhere else. You only go when you're truly in danger, and often not even then.

The cops tried to pursuade my friend to go to a shelter the night before her boyfriend killed her, but she wouldn't because she couldn't take her booze with her. I highly doubt that many guys are going to voluntarily sleep in a bunk, share a bathroom, and live without beer for very long.

Men don't want to be seen as weak or whiny victims. That is true (except here, apparently). Most men pride themselves on independence. So, how many of them would really run to a shelter? Very few.

Men and women are different, and that difference matters. Refusing to acknowledge this makes having a civil discussion impossible.

But they know the truth. This is just a convenient issue in which to bash women because it's not "equal". Not only that, but they can get upset because we're not doing it for them. "Mommy isn't helping us build any shelters, and we can't do it ourselves!" Whah!

The reason they won't even TRY to find a solution is because doing so would leave them one less reason to be angry at women.

lovelysoul
at July 9, 2009 12:52 PM

Lovelysoul,

I do agree that most men are constrained by the gender roles placed upon them and would not go to a DV shelter except in an extreme case. It's similar to all the unreported rapes I hear about. I believe the feminist stance is that we must do everthing possible to make women feel comfortable and supported so they will report the rape, even if an occasional innocent man is sacrificed. Mayabe we need a similar push to get men to report DV.

I think if you stripped this discussion down to the basic issue it would be this: Is the the current "woman always victim/man always abuser except in cases where the man deserved it" scenario too inaccurate and too simplistic to be THE basis for setting DV laws and policies? I don't think it is whining or misogynistic to discuss this question. Confusing the discussion with who built the DV shelters or would men come to DV shelters is nothing but a smokescreen to divert attention from the main question.

LS - I know there are not any male volunteers at the DV shelter (no men allowed) and you also will find more women than men volunteering at the Humane SOciety. That doesn't mean men hate animals. The fact that there are more women volunteers in general is a clear sign of female privelege: women have more free time to volunteer. Men are mostly trying to make money. That doesn't make men bad, they are trying to deal with reality and provide their spouses with thetime to volunteer.

And quit the anecdotal crap. I also know women and men who have been abused and killed. I knew a woman who was stabbed to death at work by her father's jilted homosexual lover and another woman who was tortured and killed by her boyfriend. I know a woman who killed her newborn infant. I know a man who has had his nose broken twice by his wife. I know two women who have made false rape complaints - just to get social services. The world is full of sad stories but we shouldn't take each anecdote and turn it into law. This is common sense.

I'll say one last thing and then quit beating my head against this particular wall. I am not angry at women. I love women. Thy top 6 most important people in my life are women and I spend my life trying to help, protect, and provide for them. How dare you try to intimate that I am angry at women.

I am angry at feminists, which are a small subset of actual women. Feminists have these characterisitics:

They only care about women (actually themselves)
They thnk women are morally and intellectually superior to men.
They don't care, and actually like it, if a man is treated unfarily.
Their world view is paper tissue thin and it can't stand up to least bit of of objective scrutiny.
When challenged, they first resort to childish defense tactics ("your whining, your a woman hater") and then just stop arguing when they realize they can't win.
They are nauseatingly smug (like calling themselve "lovely soul").

I expect if one of you had a son whose wife, following the advice of her lawyer,accused him of threatening her and had him kicked out of his house because she "was afraid" of him when really she just wanted to keep the house for her and her new boyfriend you would feel differently. But maybe not - a true feminist would recognize that her son had probably deserved it (just like McNair, Hartman, and WInkler) and got what he had coming.

I agree lovelsoul that men do and would resist going to shelters. As you said, it is a place of last resort, and when it was offered to me many years ago, the thought horrified me. Nobody wants to live in hiding or in fear. The fact that men are perceived to be the strong ones in our society makes them less likely to admit that they need help and less likely to ever turn to a shelter. And while I do not have the statistics to back me up, I don't think that most men face the physical fear or damage that most women face on a long term basis. Of course that is not to say that there are not men who are battered or in fear, but overall, it is something that is faced by more women. Every single day there are news reports about a woman getting killed and then we hear about the years of restraining orders and harrassment. There was just another case in Connecticut. The estranged husband held up the divorce and harassed his wife. Finally, he abducted her and held her captive in his home that was supposedly booby trapped. He demanded that the judge re-marry them and wanted a priest there to deliver last rites for her. The papers reported years of irrational behavior by this man towards her. Years and documented by courts so why was this man roaming free to kidnap his estranged wife? Is anyone getting the fact that restraining orders really do nothing to protect someone when a partner goes nuts. Is nobody realizing that the most dangerous time is when the spouse leaves or attempts to leave? Those are realities. Again, I know that there are men who have been victims, but I don't think we'll ever have true statistics on that because men do not want to be perceived as weak or needing help. I don't think that means that woman only shelters are a slap at men or discriminatory towards men. Women only shelters are a necessity. And before I'm accused of being frigid or hating men, I will say that I have very close male friends. I always have. The majority of men that I know are wonderul men who are good friends, fathers, and partners. Men do get a raw deal in sometimes, but so do women. And just to beat a dead horse here....domestic violence affects men and women. It is a cycle of control and violence. There needs to be early intervention to help break that cycle. And any abuser, male or female, needs to be punished.

Kristen
at July 9, 2009 1:47 PM

But tell us, where in this country will a woman immediateley and routinely lose her children for leaving her husband?

Utah, but only if the woman leaves the church

Men and women are different, and that difference matters. Refusing to acknowledge this makes having a civil discussion impossible -ls

Um lovelysoul, why is it when a man says thay his is a brutish misoginist only looking to oppress women?

Also, as Jim asked where is a woman gaurenteed to lose her children if she leaves an abuseive man?

Remember our conversation about madatory arrests and primary agressor laws a while back? Policys you claimed to support.

Now lets say a woman hits her husband and he calls the cops, she says shes frigtened and as he is physically larger and more often then not the primary earner that makes him the primary agressosr under those laws you support.

So even though he did nothing he gets arrested, if she gets a restraining order(even with no proof of harm) he is not allowed in his home or near his kids.

In the custody battle it come out he was arrested for DV and there is a restraining order(and why bother to read the report or the reasons for the restraining order?)

So with an arrest for DV, even though he has done nothing, and a terrified woman claiming this man needs to be kept away from him under penalty of law WHO IN THE FUCK do you think is going to get custody?

There was a case a while back, a woman climed her husband attacked he with a knife, the man calimed the woman was a self cutter and had police reports and psych evals to back him up.

The judge given the choice of sending children home with a violent knfe wielding man, or a violent knife wielding woman asked to see the recent cuts, the were parallel smooth and there was no indication that she was stabbed or recived them in any sort of struggle as she claimed.

Custody to the father. In response womens groups in the state claimed this partriorical judge had forced the woman to strip in his court room and had given custody of this poor abused womans children to the kife weilding psychopath abuser she fled in terror.

The judge was fired, and the woman was upgraded from supervised to unsupervised visitation, at which point she kidnapped the children and fled the state.

So your probably right ls, most men wont at first ue the shelters as it will practically gaurentee they lose their children to violent sociopaths that society refuses to acknowledge the existance of - but that is no reason to deny service to the few men desperate enough to try. Who knows maybe if men flee to these shelters with their kids they wont be charged with kidnapping.

But think about this, statisically most child abusers are women, how many of those childrens fathers deflect or absorb that abuse themselves?

lujlp
at July 9, 2009 1:59 PM

Every single day there are news reports about a woman getting killed and then we hear about the years of restraining orders and harrassment. - Kristen

That because the stories of men being abused are in the humor section or not reported at all

As for restarining oreders, they are worthless

The only purpose of a restraining order os to proved the prosecution with a pattern of behavior at the trial of the person who attacked or killed you.

A restraing order is uselss to you(unless your scewing over a nice guy) it is nothing more than peoples exibit number 1

lujlp
at July 9, 2009 2:06 PM

Oldfellow, I am not a feminist. I wouldn't be on this site if I viewed life that way. I am a pragmatist and a "can-do" type person. I simply can't tolerate it when people complain but don't try to find solutions. And, worse, bash the people who DO volunteer and try to make the world a better place as a "privileged class".

I know many men and women who volunteer, and most of them work full-time jobs, in addition to giving back to their community. Men don't seem to have trouble finding time to coach a little-league team or attend sporting events, so I just don't buy this, "I don't have time" attitude. If you have a legitimate concern for the well-being of others, you can find the time.

Yet, the problem is, we all acknowledge that men won't go to shelters, so why should we build them? It would be wasteful of tax dollars to build shelters that sit empty, and there would also be the concern that staffing them could draw limited resources away from the women's shelters that ARE being used.

Besides, shelters don't run entirely on government funds. They depend heavily on volunteers, donated clothing, supplies, etc. Unless you have a committed group of men, willing to consistently volunteer and raise donations, it is never going to be a successful shelter anyway.

I'm just being pragmatic here. I'd still like to see safe havens set up for men. I don't believe they are as necessary as safe havens for women, because, statistically, women are far more likely to be victims of DV than men, especially fatal victims, but that doesn't mean there isn't any need to protect men. Clearly, there is, but we must go about it in a practical way. Building shelters that no one will come to is foolish.

There has to be another way to address this. But I guess what bugs me too is the assumption that we, as women, should make this our pet cause as much as you should. It's like you resent the way women have helped each other, but that is only natural. It is human nature. Women relate to each other's experiences in a unique way, just as men do. There's nothing wrong with that.

I think it's unrealistic to expect women to take this on as a cause in the same way that men should. Not that we shouldn't be supportive, but the best people to address male DV are the people who can relate the best to it - other male DV victims. Those are the ones who naturally should be most passionate about this cause, not women. To make us feel guilty because we aren't doing this for you seems inappropriate.

lovelysoul
at July 9, 2009 2:30 PM

BTW, I hate the name "lovelysoul". It was a name I used on a dating website, and when I came here, I just used it. Wish I could change it now, as it doesn't quite fit this forum. My real name is Tanya.

lovelysoul
at July 9, 2009 2:40 PM

statistically, women are far more likely to be victims of DV than men, especially fatal victims - ls

So long as you ignore the stats on children that is.

Imagine a world wherein men werent made to feel inferior for asking for help, a world where they could protect there children from abusive mothers, as women can protect their children from abusive fathers, with out fear or repriasl or punishment.

Oh wont someone think of the children?

Or do kids not count as much as women - there are documented case where the sons of women fleeing to shelters were placed in a juvinal detention facility- but their men right? they probably deserve it

lujlp
at July 9, 2009 2:51 PM

Lovely Soul:

I'll try to be clearer: the original issue here is that Obama appointed a special "women's DV" postion to advise on women's DV issues. This is an indication that Obama is going to continue with the women-good/man-bad view of DV (he has to keep his feminist allies happy). The issue isn't about building shelters for men or whether men would go to one. Based on all available credible research (and it's overwelming) the Duluth model upon which current laws like VAWA are based, is wrong and it's socially damaging to continue to pretend that it's a valid model. Obama could recognize this by making a non-gender specific DV advisor to look out for both genders and acknowledge that men are sometimes victims of DV too. This would have had a big impact without building a single men's shelter or spening a dime on men's DV issues. He didn't (so it goes).

Being disappointed in this is not a sign of me whining about things and not offering solutions. In fact, it's silly to think that the solution is to build an equally wasteful DV infrastructure for men. We don't need need more DV industry - we need focused and effective DV help for all when it's warranted. We are not getting that now and apparently won't under Obama.

So if I say that to you, you conclude I'm a whiny can't-do loser and that offends a can-do person like yourself. I have not asked (and would never expect) women to champion this cause for men. I would expect rational women to recognize the issue and educate their less rational sisters if for no other reason than they value the men in their lives and are interested in actual fairness and equality of treatment. This is what Amy does and I thank her for it.

You may not think of yourself as a feminist but clearly you have bought into a lot of their dogma. Any notion that its not as simple as woman-good/man-bad sets off you defensive alarms. So I guess you are not a feminist because you only passively (instead of actively) resist equal treatment for men under the law. But you do use the feminist technique of blowing off and trying to humiliate any man who dare speaks up.

"I'm not talking about petty jealousy. I know women get angry over things like that - and they hit and scream - but I haven't witnessed a man who was so FRIGHTENED of a woman that he couldn't get in his truck and drive off...and keep going."

He would have to, once the woman in question lies to the police about him.
---------------------------------------

It is likely that the best solution to this problem is to forbid men and women from living together.

But then, that would not solve the domestic violence problem between lesbians which, from what I hear, is far higher than that of the "breeders".

SM777
at July 9, 2009 4:01 PM

Look, there's never going to be a perfect system, but as a GAL, I think our child protective services do a good job. And they do prosecute mothers. Plenty of them.

There needs to be more awareness about the issue of male DV victims, but the system is just not as biased as you all contend. Feminists are not lurking in every courtroom and police station rallying for men to be convicted.

Think about it: the cops are almost all male. The judges are almost all male. Males make up around 50% of most juries. If you all have a problem with the justice system, then it's at least in part due to your OWN kind failing you, not just the evil feminists you prefer to blame. That's simplistic and convenient, but you give them way too much power.

The cops I work with (they pretty much have me on speed dial) come here and do an honest and decent job assessing who is to blame (if anyone) in DV incidents. Women have been arrested here, just like men. Often, they dont arrest anybody. They just make them separate and cool off, sober up.

And I don't think I live in some fairytale land of justice and equality. All of it hinges on the PEOPLE involved, and from community to community, across this land, of course you are going to be able to find many cases where they got it wrong. Humans are fallible beings.

But I urge you guys not to narrow your perspective and immerse yourself in those cases alone. I mean, I, too, can find many cases where women were being abused, who tried desperately to get protection from the system, yet the system failed them. Many, many dead women. But I don't conclude that the system is biased against women.

My own friend is a case in point. She did not have a "love of bad boys" (Why do you need to insult a woman you don't even know, and who died in a horrible way and can't defend herself? That is sick, SM77). She was a sweet, delicate, dependent person, with low self-esteem, who got involved with the wrong man.

I could be bitter and angry over that tragic and unecessary loss, and the system's failure to protect her, but I know how hard it is for those on the front lines of these situations to determine who is telling the truth, who is truly in danger. The situations can be convoluted, especially when you add in substance abuse, and you have two drunk or stoned people standing there slurring their stories.

I feel for the cops, caseworkers, and judges that are charged with making these often life and death decisions.

Yes, I've met a few bad cops and caseworkers. I've been before one judge who was horribly biased against women and almost always ruled against them (he was gay, which is probably unrelated, but perhaps not). Certainly, there are biased and bad people in the system, no question.

But, to hear you all tell it, the system is FULL of those people, and I simply don't believe that's true. I think you're letting too much of the male rights movement color your perspective, and it's not balanced.
I would say the same thing to a feminist who came here attacking males and blaming them for everything wrong with the world. That's distorted thinking.

lovelysoul
at July 9, 2009 5:54 PM

Don't project phrases on to my posts. I never stated that the woman in question "had a love of bad boys". I merely pointed out the consequences of such a decision.

There are consequences for whom a person relates to, good and bad, regardless of how sick the concept sounds to the man-hating types.

A lot of these domestic violence problems will solve themselves when the institution of marriage is completely done away with.

Perhaps this will happen when the NAU is set up in a few years, but then we will have more important problems to worry about......

SM777
at July 9, 2009 6:57 PM

Oldfellow -

You say you don't like anecdotes but apparently you love wild generalizations.

"The fact that there are more women volunteers in general is a clear sign of female privelege: women have more free time to volunteer. Men are mostly trying to make money. That doesn't make men bad, they are trying to deal with reality and provide their spouses with the time to volunteer."

Seriously? Because I'd bet good money that even among young men and women, and among single men and women, women have a far higher rate of volunteerism. And it's across the economic board. I see it to this day whenever we're out volunteering.

JulieA
at July 9, 2009 9:14 PM

Lovelysoul -

I don't often post, but I'm a regular reader. I just wanted to say that I don't always agree with your positions, but I think I fell a little bit in love with you when I read this:

Men don't want to be seen as weak or whiny victims. That is true (except here, apparently).

JulieA
at July 9, 2009 9:15 PM

Hey Luj -

Just catching up. Can I have a citation on that case with the cutter? There must have been slews of articles if it got so much attention from the feminists. Also, judges don't get fired.

JulieA
at July 9, 2009 9:22 PM

Here you go JulieA

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1872
Its a short entry, but within the link you will ses limks to all the previous posts on the subject and each post has linkt to various newspapers and other reference material

lujlp
at July 9, 2009 9:42 PM

Thanks Lujlp - Although I wish all links didn't lead back to Glenn Sacks, hardly an unbiased source. I do hope that girl is back with her dad. But that judge seems to have had a history of not handling people well in his courtroom.

julieA
at July 9, 2009 10:02 PM

Read all the lnks there is one deticated to the lawyers who stood up to defend the guy.

lujlp
at July 9, 2009 10:15 PM

lol. Thanks, JulieA

lovelysoul
at July 10, 2009 7:04 AM

Its a beginning. Thing is women's advocates are further ahead in helping women than men's advocates are in helping men because women's advocates have about a 40 year headstart. What comes to mind everytime I see/hear a woman's advocate tell men to stop whining and do something is that they are not considering that those men's advocates are at the same place women were about 40 years ago.

People didn't know about or refused to acknowledge women victims of DV back then so someone had to start talking about. I'll even bet that people tried to silence the first women's advocates just as women's advocates are trying to silence men's advocates now (just switch "Get back in the kitchen woman!" with "Stop whining." as both are attempts to silence victims). The way DV is handled these days didn't develop over night. It took years of raising awareness and activism in order for women to get the help they need (I think that the system is out of balance but thats another story) and men will have to do the same thing and just as women from 60s did men are going to have to fight a major uphill battle.

Women, blacks, GLBT communities, etc... name a single group that was able to bring about positive change for their issues overnight. So why is it that people (mostly feminists)think that men can somehow get their issues addressed overnight?

(I think I know why but if I'm right the answer is very disappointing.)

"Oldfellow - You say you don't like anecdotes but apparently you love wild generalizations.

"The fact that there are more women volunteers in general is a clear sign of female privelege: women have more free time to volunteer. Men are mostly trying to make money. That doesn't make men bad, they are trying to deal with reality and provide their spouses with the time to volunteer."

Seriously? Because I'd bet good money that even among young men and women, and among single men and women, women have a far higher rate of volunteerism. And it's across the economic board. I see it to this day whenever we're out volunteering."

JulieA - I think you are agreeing with my point which is that women do volunteer more than men and I would agree its across the economic board. I said that this was a sign of female privelege - women have more free time. You may think its because women are more caring than men. For many women I know, volunteering is an important part of their self actualization. It's a good thing, I don't know where we'd be as a society without voluneerism. But, yes, as I said in my post, women do volunteer more than men. So we agree? Or am I confused (or are you?)

Well-said, Danny. I don't think it will be addressed overnight. I agree with you that men are where women were 40 years ago on this issue, but that is precisely why they should keep trying, not give up. It was an uphill battle back then, but eventually, they were able to bring about real change.

The first thing that must happen is to address the stigma involved in talking about abuse. Women had that too. 40 years ago, women were expected to be good wives and support their husbands. Especially if they were well-off, they didn't expect anyone to believe them, and they faced severe financial repercussions when trying to escape abuse.

It took a lot of PSAs, articles, and education to show women that they weren't alone and could come forward with their experiences. It took a lot of fundraising and lobbying to get the first shelters built.

But that was before the internet, so I think men have a bit of an advantage in that regard. Blogs like this, and sites like Glen Sacks's, help get the information out there much faster (and cheaper) than the way the women's movement had to go about it.

Still, there's an even greater stigma for men, so that's a challenge. You're going to need some big, tough-looking guys willing to share their stories of DV, until it seems ok for the weaker ones to admit being abused too. You have to normalize it within the culture.

Yet, consider how embarrassing erectile dysfunction was only about 25 years ago. When Bob Dole first did those commercials, we all squirmed. Now, you've got people SINGING about their ED and viagra on TV.

So, it CAN be done. PR, when used well, is amazing.

lovelysoul
at July 10, 2009 8:01 AM

But that was before the internet, so I think men have a bit of an advantage in that regard. Blogs like this, and sites like Glen Sacks's, help get the information out there much faster (and cheaper) than the way the women's movement had to go about it.
But then consider that the people that want to silence such sites as this and Glenn Sacks have access to the same tools. What is sad is that such tools have to wasted on fighting back those that try to silence people.

Still, there's an even greater stigma for men, so that's a challenge. You're going to need some big, tough-looking guys willing to share their stories of DV, until it seems ok for the weaker ones to admit being abused too. You have to normalize it within the culture.
Yeah someone is going to have to take the big leap and be first. And I think it would also help if whenever a talk show or news program promises to have a "frank discussion" on DV they spend the entire time talking only about male against female DV. And would the, "That's because most DV is male against female!" crowd care to explain why then when the topic is child abuse we still only mainly talk about male abusers despite most child abuse (especially fatal abuse) is being done by women?

My argument, oldfellow, is calling it a point of privilege. I don't think all the high school, college, single and single mothers I see out volunteering across the economic board would agree that they're only there because some man is paying their way. They are there because they can about a greater community than themselves. And, yes, of course men volunteer too but in far smaller numbers across all groups and I think that it maybe just how we are made.

JulieA
at July 10, 2009 9:01 AM

"That's because most DV is male against female!" crowd care to explain why then when the topic is child abuse we still only mainly talk about male abusers despite most child abuse (especially fatal abuse) is being done by women?"

I don't know where that stat comes from, but it is often used here, and if it is from a legitimate/non-biased source, then it is clearly because many more children live in homes with a single female parent. Statistically, then, it would follow that more children are abused by mothers, rather than fathers. Yet, this is often quoted as if to imply women are naturally more violent and abusive than men, but that's not a fair or true implication.

lovelysoul
at July 10, 2009 9:20 AM

JulieA wrote:

"My argument, oldfellow, is calling it a point of privilege. I don't think all the high school, college, single and single mothers I see out volunteering across the economic board would agree that they're only there because some man is paying their way. They are there because they can about a greater community than themselves. And, yes, of course men volunteer too but in far smaller numbers across all groups and I think that it maybe just how we are made."

Oldfellow says: I see. Most volunteers are hardworking women who, in addition to their breadwinning roles and dire circumstances, volunteer because they "can (care?) more about their community."

So women are noble and men don't care as much about the community. It's a good thing I know that you don't like to make sweeping genralizations or I would say you were making one in this case.

Of course there are many nobel women (my sister is one) who work hard and also volunteer (she is a realtor). I am by no menas tryng to minimize the contribution of or deny the existence of hardworking women volunteers. However, the majority of the women I know who volunteer either don't work or only work part time. Most of the men I know who volunteer are retired. I realize this is anecdotal but I don't know where to find any stats on this.

Anyway, I think our different biases are clear:

You think more women volunteer because they care more about others, even if it's a great hardship for them to do so. Men on the other hand don't care as much about others and so don't volunteer as much, even though they could. So this is the basic woman-good/man-bad view of the world.

My bias is that many women and men volunteer becasue they care about others. More women volunteer because they have more available time and like to volunteer as a means of self actualization. In other words women are littel higher on Maslow's hierarchy than men and so are able to spend more time self actualizing as opposed to trying to meet more basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, etc.) In my view then: women-good/men-good.

A certain percentage of both genders are of course not good or don't you agree? Have you ever met a bad woman (I have) or are there always etenuating circumstances to justify her badness (just curious)? One of my greatrest hopes is to one day see a feminist admit that there are significant number of women (maybe 5%) who are absolutly whacko on a day to day basis and can't be trusted with power given them under current DV/rape laws. Most however won't admit there are any bad women (only bad men).

Tell me JulieA - in your world view are only men privileged? Why does it bug you if I point out an area in life where I think women are privileged?

Yet, this is often quoted as if to imply women are naturally more violent and abusive than men, but that's not a fair or true implication.
Oh no I mean it to ask if children are so important and people care about ending violence period why is it that only violent males are brought up. I personally don't like squabbling over what group (by gender, race, etc...) I'm just baffled as to why discussion on DV is so one sided.

BTW I got that from a government site but I'm not sure which one. I have it on my own blog from a post about 2 months ago but I can't search it because blogspot is blocked at my job.

Danny, I think there are different meanings generally associated with the terms. There's "domestic violence", which tends to be used to describe abuse between adults, and then there's "child abuse", which refers purely to abuse of children.

I agree that the topic of DV seems to be mainly discussed in terms of male abuser/female victim. That is the most common form, but certainly not the only form, so the other forms are being neglected.

However, I don't find that discussions of child abuse are limited only to male abusers. You see women being confronted about the abuse of their children on talk shows all the time. "Dr. Phil", for instance, has had several shows featuring female child abusers. And, just yesterday, "Oprah", featured a case of a young girl so badly neglected by her mother - left alone to starve in a room and covered with cockroaches - that she was severely mentally disabled.

Both genders abuse their children pretty equally. It's hard to say that any one gender is less likely to be abusive towards children. I think most people understand that. We all know, or have seen, child abusers of both genders.

However, I think most people just aren't as familiar with female domestic abusers. Men probably still cover it up, out of embarrassment, so even if you're living next door to one, you may not realize it.

Plus, something we haven't discussed yet is the different ways in which the genders abuse. It's too bad McNair did not survive, as he would be exactly the kind of macho spokesperson needed for this cause.

Yet, his case also may indicate that women and men abuse very differently. It seems to me, at least, that women tend to stew silently for awhile, giving no sign of how much anger is building up inside them, then suddenly snap and take revenge. Whereas male abusers are more likely to be consistently controlling and dominating, instilling fear over a longer period.

I don't see any evidence that McNair, for instance, had any reason to be afraid of his girlfriend. Otherwise, he probably wouldn't have gone to the condo. And she shot him in his sleep, apparently, so he never had a clue how dangerous she was.

This could be relevant when we talk about shelters, as I think women are given more signs of danger, so by the time they choose to go to a shelter, they are well-aware that this man is dangerous.

I don't know if the McNair case, along with the Winkler and Hartman cases, really indicate different patterns of abusive behavior between genders, but it would be interesting to see some studies done. If men usually have no idea when they're in mortal danger, shelters won't help much.

lovelysoul
at July 10, 2009 11:27 AM

Danny, I think there are different meanings generally associated with the terms. There's "domestic violence", which tends to be used to describe abuse between adults, and then there's "child abuse", which refers purely to abuse of children.
Yes I agree I just mentioned that as an example of how people care about who commits a certain crime the most when it suits their own arguments but will go silent otherwise.

"Oprah", featured a case of a young girl so badly neglected by her mother - left alone to starve in a room and covered with cockroaches - that she was severely mentally disabled.
If this is the story I'm thinking of you might not be as happy about the mom's punishment. Assuming this is the same story it happened in Florida over the course of several years and the girl could not speak or eat solid food by herself at the age of 10. The mom in this story, as proof of female sentencing discount, was able to make a deal for a lighter sentence in exchange for giving up custody. I know this may be an isolated incident but when is the last time you've known a father to use custody as a bargaining chip to get a lighter sentence for abusing said child?

It seems to me, at least, that women tend to stew silently for awhile, giving no sign of how much anger is building up inside them, then suddenly snap and take revenge. Whereas male abusers are more likely to be consistently controlling and dominating, instilling fear over a longer period.
I'm sure you didn't intend it but look at how you worded that. Men abuse to maintain control while women do out of a desire for revenge. Men are implied to be natually inclined to abuse where women only commit violence for revenge or self defense. Again I'll bet you didn't mean it that way but given the subject I just had to point it out.

You know that "bias" site by Glen Sacks convered the mentally destroyed girl before Oprah did, but he's biased so we cant trust him

lujlp
at July 10, 2009 12:42 PM

Yes, it's the same case. Not really knowing all the details, it's hard to say, but most of the time, when there's no prior offenses or criminal record, that's not unsual in a neglect case.

Neglect is often treated differently than striking a child. One is active and the other is passive. It's not always clear that the parent is fully cognizant that they are neglecting the child. Usually, there are real mental, as well as financial, issues in those cases too. Many parents simply can't afford food, clothing, and all the things kids need. From the interview I saw, it seemed the mother truly wasn't all there mentally.

If a single, financially overwhelmed, mentally ill father was in the same situation, with no prior record, and he had custody, I think he would've been offered the same sort of plea. Their main concern was getting the child out of that environment. Although it makes the public feel good to be punitive, and send parents, even mentally ill ones, off to jail, that really isn't the first concern of child protective services. I'm sure they wanted to make sure the child could be adopted quickly.

Every case is different. We're dealing with people, not gender. No doubt there are men in similar circumstances that would be sent to jail. But we just had a case here where a young mom was sent to jail for neglecting her infant. The baby was malnourished and not given proper medical treatment. But, in that case, there had been plenty of warnings. CPS visits, and doctor's instructions. The mom was more interested in partying than caring for her child properly.

So, it often gets down to intent. Was the parent being callous and cruel, mentally ill, or simply clueless? Like the dad who let his two kids out of the broken-down car to walk in the snow to their mother's house...for miles...and one froze to death. I don't remember where that case was, but I read he was screaming in agony once he realized what happened, what a stupid thing he'd done. Maybe I'm wrong, but I bet he didn't do jail time either.

For every case where you all think a woman got off too lightly, there's also a case where a man did too. Or one where a woman was prosecuted. Women are prosecuted for abuse and neglect all the time!

lovelysoul
at July 10, 2009 1:38 PM

For every case where you all think a woman got off too lightly, there's also a case where a man did too. Or one where a woman was prosecuted. Women are prosecuted for abuse and neglect all the time!

True but what bothers me is when feminists highlight one as proof of oppression of women and treat the other as the occasional isolated incident.

'However, I don't find that discussions of child abuse are limited only to male abusers. "

Given that women tend to commit most child abuse - and if it's because they are in contact with children more, that is an argument to limit contatc, especially in the case of child custody - then if we find the discussion of child abuse mentions men and women erqually often, it is lop--sided and biased.

But then there are clear cases of bias, like the period of about a year when the state of washington had a billboard campaign of public infomration with a picture of a man in a ajcket with "Child Abuser" on it, and a caption to the effect that child abusers were not always so clearly labelled. A man - why was a man and not a woman chosen as the example?